4 ms·

> Recently, two big news newspapers had to shut down and that print sales are declining is nothing new. I cant remember the last time I bought a newspaper and I

> Recently, two big news newspapers had to shut down and that print sales are declining is nothing new. I cant remember the last time I bought a newspaper and I am also pretty sure that although blogs/twitter/whatever are a good addition they cant replace classical media. There is definately a need for the discussion for new sources of incomes for classical paper based medias as ad sales from their online publication wont cut it. ... I like Clay Shirky's comment: > Round and round this goes, with the people committed to saving newspapers demanding to know “If the old model is broken, what will work in its place?” To which the answer is: Nothing. Nothing will work. There is no general model for newspapers to replace the one the internet just broke. and The newspaper people often note that newspapers benefit society as a whole. This is true, but irrelevant to the problem at hand; “You’re gonna miss us when we’re gone!” has never been much of a business model. http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-unthinkable/ http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking...

lhnn 14y ago
Well, if we're going to miss them when they're gone, then we should figure out a goddamned way to replace it, rather than saying, "The Internet is just too much revolution for you to handle, man." Full-time investigative journalism cannot go away, for the sake of society. It's a matter of how we will continue it, or what model and best practices will supplant it. iReport doesn't count.
- summerdown2 14y ago
  I'm not sure we are going to miss them when they're gone. The point of Clay's article, as I read it, is that's their argument. In reality, I agree with Clay (and you, I think), which is to say that it isn't newpapers we might miss, but solid journalism. The interesting question is whether these are indpendent variables. I.e. could we have newspapers without good journalism and good journalism without newspapers. I think a good case can be made that journalism has been declining for years, irrespective of the effect of the internet. I also think it's quite possible we may end up with good journalism and no newspapers. I don't think wikileaks is the answer, for example, but such an organisation couldn't exist twenty years ago. I think we'll see a lot more attempts to create a 21st century journalism model before one sticks.
  - richardjordan 14y ago
    It won't go away it'll be replaced by other things. It already is. People get more news faster from voices on the ground in events like the Arab Spring than they ever did from a newspaper. So for immediacy other avenues are arising. Newspapers and media companies, have had no problem killing off their news departments in the name of profits - eliminating foreign desks, reducing investigative reporting, focusing on lifestyle reportage and opinion pieces. High quality opinion writers are finding success as bloggers - some are able to make a perfectly good living as such. They don't need the label of a newspaper to sit beneath any more. There will always be outlets for investigative journalism. There will always be some form of news show and publication. Advertisers gain a certain value from placing their ads alongside high quality news content. Just not enough to support billions of dollars of newspaper revenue. If the commercial radio and TV stations disappeared from the Bay Area we'd still have NPR - a high quality news alternative. Why? Because there are a certain number of people always prepared to pay something for high quality content. Long way of saying I think you're right - we'll end up with good journalism and no newspapers.
derleth 14y ago
> The newspaper people often note that newspapers benefit society as a whole. This is true, but irrelevant to the problem at hand; “You’re gonna miss us when we’re gone!” has never been much of a business model. In case you collect logical fallacies, this is a wonderful example of "Argument from adverse consequences": A But A leads to B, and B is bad Therefore, Not A This is reasonable if you're deciding whether to pursue A as a course of action, but it is idiotic if you're trying to decide whether A is true or not. A will be true or false regardless of whether you like what it leads to.
schabernakk 14y ago
Isn't the problem here that the benefit is not directly visible? Same reason there is still no global agreement on a proceeding against global warming. There is no doubt that you need a functioning, diverse and independent press for a functioning democracy. So indirectly everyone (corporations as well) benefits from this institution. In germany we have a couple public tv stations which are financed through a fee everyone owning a tv must pay, regardless if they watch those channels or not. They arent bound to a viewing quota, are independet from the government and have an educational mandate. Well, at least in theory: In practice huge amounts of money are just wasted by a gigantic bureaucratic apparatus, politicians and the church have a saying in the content and the stuff shown is becoming more and more like the crap on private tv stations. I think something like this could be a viable solutions. But implementing it, especially the algorithm which decides who gets how much is very hard if not impossible. To much attack surface for illegitimate interventions. edit: typed that comment before I had time to view your link. great read. Never really thought about the "save newspapers vs save journalists vs save society" aspect.
- richardjordan 14y ago
  You appear to be arguing that we should subsidize businesses for which the market rate for their product is virtually zero. The idea that what's in the interests of big media companies and their owners is somehow in the interests of the creative talent (think - do musicians outside a tiny number of stars have any negotiating position with record giants?) and that that is in turn somehow in the interests of society just doesn't follow for me. Every industry that fails makes the same argument - the public should pay to save us (and you are paying if as a Google customer you are forced to have your services restricted because Google has to pay to subsidize these failed businesses). But just as the piano sheet music industry was successfully replaced by the recording industry, new industries rise and replace old ones and meet the demands of the market. Just because we cannot see what that future is - because if we could we'd be building it and be billionaires doing so - doesn't mean it won't happen. Twitter's coverage of the Arab Spring was better than any Western media in the early days... food for thought.
  - schabernakk 14y ago

lhnn 14y ago

Well, if we're going to miss them when they're gone, then we should figure out a goddamned way to replace it, rather than saying, "The Internet is just too much revolution for you to handle, man." Full-time investigative journalism cannot go away, for the sake of society. It's a matter of how we will continue it, or what model and best practices will supplant it. iReport doesn't count.

summerdown2 14y ago
I'm not sure we are going to miss them when they're gone. The point of Clay's article, as I read it, is that's their argument. In reality, I agree with Clay (and you, I think), which is to say that it isn't newpapers we might miss, but solid journalism. The interesting question is whether these are indpendent variables. I.e. could we have newspapers without good journalism and good journalism without newspapers. I think a good case can be made that journalism has been declining for years, irrespective of the effect of the internet. I also think it's quite possible we may end up with good journalism and no newspapers. I don't think wikileaks is the answer, for example, but such an organisation couldn't exist twenty years ago. I think we'll see a lot more attempts to create a 21st century journalism model before one sticks.
- richardjordan 14y ago
  It won't go away it'll be replaced by other things. It already is. People get more news faster from voices on the ground in events like the Arab Spring than they ever did from a newspaper. So for immediacy other avenues are arising. Newspapers and media companies, have had no problem killing off their news departments in the name of profits - eliminating foreign desks, reducing investigative reporting, focusing on lifestyle reportage and opinion pieces. High quality opinion writers are finding success as bloggers - some are able to make a perfectly good living as such. They don't need the label of a newspaper to sit beneath any more. There will always be outlets for investigative journalism. There will always be some form of news show and publication. Advertisers gain a certain value from placing their ads alongside high quality news content. Just not enough to support billions of dollars of newspaper revenue. If the commercial radio and TV stations disappeared from the Bay Area we'd still have NPR - a high quality news alternative. Why? Because there are a certain number of people always prepared to pay something for high quality content. Long way of saying I think you're right - we'll end up with good journalism and no newspapers.

derleth 14y ago

> The newspaper people often note that newspapers benefit society as a whole. This is true, but irrelevant to the problem at hand; “You’re gonna miss us when we’re gone!” has never been much of a business model. In case you collect logical fallacies, this is a wonderful example of "Argument from adverse consequences": A But A leads to B, and B is bad Therefore, Not A This is reasonable if you're deciding whether to pursue A as a course of action, but it is idiotic if you're trying to decide whether A is true or not. A will be true or false regardless of whether you like what it leads to.

schabernakk 14y ago

Isn't the problem here that the benefit is not directly visible? Same reason there is still no global agreement on a proceeding against global warming. There is no doubt that you need a functioning, diverse and independent press for a functioning democracy. So indirectly everyone (corporations as well) benefits from this institution. In germany we have a couple public tv stations which are financed through a fee everyone owning a tv must pay, regardless if they watch those channels or not. They arent bound to a viewing quota, are independet from the government and have an educational mandate. Well, at least in theory: In practice huge amounts of money are just wasted by a gigantic bureaucratic apparatus, politicians and the church have a saying in the content and the stuff shown is becoming more and more like the crap on private tv stations. I think something like this could be a viable solutions. But implementing it, especially the algorithm which decides who gets how much is very hard if not impossible. To much attack surface for illegitimate interventions. edit: typed that comment before I had time to view your link. great read. Never really thought about the "save newspapers vs save journalists vs save society" aspect.

richardjordan 14y ago
You appear to be arguing that we should subsidize businesses for which the market rate for their product is virtually zero. The idea that what's in the interests of big media companies and their owners is somehow in the interests of the creative talent (think - do musicians outside a tiny number of stars have any negotiating position with record giants?) and that that is in turn somehow in the interests of society just doesn't follow for me. Every industry that fails makes the same argument - the public should pay to save us (and you are paying if as a Google customer you are forced to have your services restricted because Google has to pay to subsidize these failed businesses). But just as the piano sheet music industry was successfully replaced by the recording industry, new industries rise and replace old ones and meet the demands of the market. Just because we cannot see what that future is - because if we could we'd be building it and be billionaires doing so - doesn't mean it won't happen. Twitter's coverage of the Arab Spring was better than any Western media in the early days... food for thought.
- schabernakk 14y ago